1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper studies rhetorical questions containing cognitive verbs that function as reproaches in Spanish. Its two main goals are to determine the degree of specialization of rhetorical questions as reproaches and to examine the characterization of reproaching as a speech act, indicating the distinctive features that distinguish it from other similar speech acts.

Based on a contextual analysis of approximately 500 instances of reproaches in conflict talk drawn from the Spanish Royal Academy’s Corpes XXI corpus, I identify and describe the most commonly used cognitive verbs and syntactic structures used in rhetorical questions. The results show that reproach is a reactive-provocative speech act in which the speaker reacts to a contradiction perceived in their interlocutor’s words, actions or thoughts. The speaker appeals to their interlocutor’s moral conscience, making them think about this inconsistency; finally, the speaker creates the expectation of a duty that should have been carried out by the interlocutor.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00077.alb
2022-05-17
2024-04-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albelda Marco, Marta
    2008 “Influence of Situational Factors on the Codification and Interpretation of Impoliteness”. Pragmatics18(4): 751–773. 10.1075/prag.18.4.09alb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.4.09alb [Google Scholar]
  2. Albelda Marco, Marta
    . forth. 2022 “¿No te das cuenta de que me estás molestando? Las recriminaciones intensificadas mediante preguntas retóricas” (‘Can’t you see you’re hassling me? Intensified reproaches expressed by rhetorical questions’). Lingüística Española Actual.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Albelda Marco, Marta, and Maria Estellés
    2021 “De nuevo sobre la intensificación pragmática: revisión y propuesta” (‘Revisiting pragmatic intensification: revision and definition proposal’). Estudios Románicos301: 15–37. 10.6018/ER.470321
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ER.470321 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alcaide Lara, Esperanza. R.
    2019 “Imagen social y contextos socioculturales en el discurso publicitario institucional español con fines sociales (‘Social face and sociocultural contexts in the discourse of official advertising for social purposes’)”. Sociocultural Pragmatics7(3): 297–334.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anzilotti, Gloria
    1982 “The Rhetorical Question as an Indirect Speech Device in English and Italian.” Canadian Modern Language Review381: 290–302. 10.3138/cmlr.38.2.290
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.38.2.290 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish
    1979Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ballmer, Thomas T., and Waltrau Brennenstuhl
    1981Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑67758‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67758-8 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bertomeu, Pau
    2022Peticiones en alemán y español: un estudio contrastivo a partir de Gran Hermano (‘Requests in German and Spanish: a contrastive study based on Big Brother’). Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b19223
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b19223 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blanco, Antonio
    2008 “Cómo hacer cosas malas con las palabras: actos ilocucionarios hostiles y los fundamentos de la teoría actos de habla (‘How to do bad things with words: hostile illocutionary acts and the basics of speech act theory’).” CRÍTICA, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía40(118): 3–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bosque Muñoz, Ignacio
    1980Sobre la negación (‘On negation’). Madrid: Cátedra.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bousfield, Derek
    2008Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013 “Face in Conflict.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict1(1): 37–57. 10.1075/jlac.1.1.03bou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.1.03bou [Google Scholar]
  13. Boxer, Diana
    1993 “Social Distance and Speech Behavior: The Case of Indirect Complaints.” Journal of Pragmatics191: 103–125. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90084‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90084-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2002 “Nagging: The Familial Conflict Arena.” Journal of Pragmatics341: 49–61. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00022‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00022-4 [Google Scholar]
  15. Boxer, Diana, and Joseph Radice
    2018 “Bickering. A Conflict Speech Behavior of Close Social Distance.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict6(2): 177–202. 10.1075/jlac.00009.box
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00009.box [Google Scholar]
  16. Briz Gómez, Antonio
    2017 “Una propuesta funcional para el análisis de la estrategia pragmática intensificadora en la conversación coloquial (‘A functional proposal for analysing intensifying pragmatic strategies in colloquial conversation’).” InAtenuación e intensificación en géneros discursivos (‘Mitigation and intensification in discourse genres’)”, ed. byMarta Albelda, and Wiltrud Mihatsch, 43–67. Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert. 10.31819/9783954876334‑003
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783954876334-003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  18. Burguera Serra, Joan
    2009Gramática y pragmática de la interrogación retórica en español. Una aplicación al debate parlamentario (‘Grammar and pragmatics of rhetorical questions in Spanish. An application to parliamentary debate’). Barcelona: University of Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
    2002 “Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan.” Journal of Communication52(4): 749–75. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02572.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Cresti, Emanuela
    2005 “Per una nuova classificazione dell’illocuzione a partire da un corpus di parlato (LABLITA) (‘Towards a new classification of illocution based on a spoken corpus’)”. InTradizione e innovazione: il parlato (‘Tradition and innovation: speech’), ed. byElisabeth Burr, 233–246. Pisa: Cesati.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. D’Amico-Reissner, Lynne
    1985 “An Ethnolinguistic Study of Disapproval Exchanges.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
  22. Escandell, María Victoria
    1987La interrogación en español: semántica y pragmática (‘Questions in Spanish: semantics and pragmatics’) Madrid: Universidad Complutense.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor
    1998 “Regularity and Idiomacity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone”. Language84/31: 501–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Furuta, Yumie
    2017Clasificación de los verbos del español atendiendo a la configuración de sus argumentos oracionales (‘Classification of Spanish verbs according to the configuration of their sentence-level arguments’). Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. 10.14201/gredos.135810
    https://doi.org/10.14201/gredos.135810 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gancedo, Marta
    2019Evolución de la imagen de rol familiar en el teatro de finales del siglo XIX a mitad del XX. Su manifestación en la atenuación e intensificación de los actos directivos (‘Evolution of the image of the role of the family in the theatre from the late 19th to the mid-20th century. As shown in mitigation and intensification of directive acts’). Valencia: University of Valencia.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    2013 “Introduction: Face, Identity and Im/politeness. Looking Backward, Moving Forward: From Goffman to Practice Theory.” Journal of Politeness Research9(1): 1–33. 10.1515/pr‑2013‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2021 “Impoliteness and Conflict in Spanish”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Spanish Pragmatics, ed. byDale Koike, and César Félix-Brasdefer, 371–386. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. García-Miguel, José María, and Susana Comesaña
    2004 “Verbs of Cognition in Spanish: Constructional Schemas and Reference Points.” InLinguagem, Cultura e Cognição. Estudios de Lingüistica Cognitiva (‘Language, Culture and Cognition. Cognitive Linguistics Studies’), ed. byAugusto Soares, Amadeu Torres, and Miguel Gonçalves, 399–419. Coimbra: Almedina.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. García-Ramón, Amparo
    2018Epistemicidad en interacción: (a)simetrías epistémicas en secuencias de acuerdo y su relación con la construcción de roles funcionales en conversaciones y entrevistas (‘Epistemicity in interaction: epistemic (a)symmetries in agreement sequences and their relation to the construction of functional roles in conversations and interviews’). Valencia: University of Valencia
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, Adele
    2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Grimshaw, Allen D.
    (ed.) 1990Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hancher, Michael
    1979 “The Classification of Cooperative Illocutionary Acts”. Language in Society8(1): 1–14. 10.1017/S0047404500005911
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005911 [Google Scholar]
  33. Haverkate, Henk
    2006 “Aspectos pragmalingüísticos de la interrogación en español con atención especial a las secuencias de preguntas (‘Pragmalinguistic aspects of questions in Spanish with particular attention to question sequences’).” Cultura, lenguaje y representación31: 27–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Heritage, John
    2011 “Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 159–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ilgizovna, Ikhsanova
    2018 “The Pragmatic Potential of Rhetorical Questions in English Informal Speech.” Paper presented at78º Eurasian Scientific Association, Moscow.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ilie, Cornelia
    1994What else can I tell you? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiskell International.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kasper, Gabriele
    1988 “Variation in Interlanguage Speech Act Realization.” University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL7(2): 117–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Koshik, Irene
    2005Beyond Rhetorical Questions. Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.16
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16 [Google Scholar]
  39. Oh, Choon-Kyu, and David A. Dinneen
    (eds.) 1979Syntax & Semantics. Vol.111: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Olshtain, Elite, and Liora Weinbach
    1987 “Complaints: A Study of Speech Act Behavior among Native and Nonnative Speakers of Hebrew. InThe Pragmatic Perspective, ed. byJef Verschueren, and Marcella Bertuccelli-Papi), 195–208. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbcs.5.15ols
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.5.15ols [Google Scholar]
  41. Pérez Hernández, Lorena
    2001Illocution and Cognition: A Constructional Approach. Logroño: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Rioja.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Plantin, Christian
    2005L’argumentation: histoire, théories et perspectives. París: Presses universitaires. 10.3917/puf.plant.2005.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.plant.2005.01 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen
    1977 “On So-called Rhetorical Questions.” Journal of Pragmatics11: 375–392. 10.1016/0378‑2166(77)90029‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(77)90029-7 [Google Scholar]
  44. Searle, John
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  45. Smith, Neilson
    (ed.) 1982Mutual Knowledge. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Soler, Amparo
    2021Semántica de creo. Análisis cognitivo de la polisemia de una forma verbal doxástica en la interacción oral en español. (‘Semantics of creo: Cognitive analysis of the polysemy of a doxastic verb form in oral interaction in Spanish’). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Spanish Royal Academy: Databank (CORPES) [online database]
    Spanish Royal Academy: Databank (CORPES) [online database]. Corpus del español del siglo XXIwww.rae.es Last accessed: August 2021.
  48. Steensig, Jakob, and Paul Drew
    2008 “Introduction: Questioning and Affiliation/ Disaffiliation in Interaction.” Discourse Studies10(1): 5–15. 10.1177/1461445607085581
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085581 [Google Scholar]
  49. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language & Social Interaction41(1): 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  50. Thomas, Jenny
    1986 “The Dynamics of Discourse: A Pragmatic Analysis of Confrontational Interaction.” Doctoral Dissertation. University of Lancaster.
  51. Traugott, Elizabeth, and Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Uclés, Gloria
    2021Atenuación y actividades de imagen en México y España a través de marcadores de control del contacto (‘Mitigation and face activities in Mexico and Spain through phatic markers’). Valencia: University of Valencia.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Van Rooy, Robert
    2003 “Negative Polarity Items in Questions: Strength as Relevance.” Journal of Semantics201: 239–273. 10.1093/jos/20.3.239
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/20.3.239 [Google Scholar]
  54. Viberg, Ake
    1983 “The Verbs of Perception: A Typological Study.” Linguistics211: 123–162. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  55. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1987English Speech Act Verbs. A Semantic Dictionary. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00077.alb
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00077.alb
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive verbs; hostility; reproach; rhetorical question
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error